How Could the Beach Boys Have Kept Themselves Relevant after 1966?

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

It is hard to determine without being there, but from recordings it sounds like when Brian left the touring band, a certain professionalism was lost until they started bringing in outside musicians.that's why I have said in the past that Smile couldn't have been performed live by the band, at least not well. I think once 1968 rolled around they improved out of necessity.

 With that in mind. I actually like that somewhat clumsy sound on the Michigan and Hawaii tapes!

[hypehat]

The 1964 Beach Boys were boss though live.

I think another reason their popularity went down is their live show got really crappy in 1965-1967 once Brian left the road.

Did you go to any shows in 1965-1967 to tell us in what manner they were "crappy?"

Short of having a time machine, no. However, I have listened to a fair few shows and they are sloppy at best. I'm also not going off forty year old memories.

What you're trying to say is 'I had a good time', and that's totally cool, but the evidence I, a young whippersnapper, have - the tapes - show that they were hardly a fantastic live act. If I paid to see that, I'd be miffed that's for damn sure. I've seen better rehearsed bands down the pub.

They seemed to buck their ideas up for 1969 (Or whenever Live In London was recorded), and The Big Sur Festival in 1970. But if you listen to the tapes, that is good music played badly.

[rab2591]

The 'Lets Take A Trip Down To Hawthorne' boot has such a great vibe to it (especially California Girls). But that's really the only concert I can judge that era by.

[seltaeb1012002]

The 'Lets Take A Trip Down To Hawthorne' boot has such a great vibe to it (especially California Girls). But that's really the only concert I can judge that era by.

Love the Hawaii shows!

Kinda wish there was more from '65. We have that partial show from Chicago. Would love to hear some of those rarities they performed such as "Please Let Me Wonder", "Girl Don't Tell Me", "Do You Wanna Dance", etc.

[SMiLE Brian]

This Vocal element show is part of my point. They completely STOP the song twice near the end of California Girls (25:00 to 27:00) and can't remember how to end the song. They joke about and just don't care a whole lot. This show just gives off a vibe of them not giving a crap about performing standards.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMbI-SVtM3I&feature=youtu.be

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

Soundboards are notoriously bad at recreating the experience of being at a show.... I have soundboard tapes of shows I was at that were earth shatteringly good THERE but sound like complete merda on the recording.... What you're listening to on a soundboard recording (Desper among others can correct me if I'm wrong) is the guy doing the live mix as it happens: pushing up mics and backing them off as things are happening (hot mics threatening to cause feedback, certain instruments not cutting through, then suddenly cutting through to much etc etc) .... I'd say, by and large, audience tapes are better for picking up the vibes! Soundboards are better as an anthropological record, but neither replicate the experience of being there. Live albums don't either because they're usually overdubbed to hell.....

[filledeplage]

The 1964 Beach Boys were boss though live.

I think another reason their popularity went down is their live show got really crappy in 1965-1967 once Brian left the road.

Did you go to any shows in 1965-1967 to tell us in what manner they were "crappy?"

Short of having a time machine, no. However, I have listened to a fair few shows and they are sloppy at best. I'm also not going off forty year old memories.

What you're trying to say is 'I had a good time', and that's totally cool, but the evidence I, a young whippersnapper, have - the tapes - show that they were hardly a fantastic live act. If I paid to see that, I'd be miffed that's for damn sure. I've seen better rehearsed bands down the pub.

They seemed to buck their ideas up for 1969 (Or whenever Live In London was recorded), and The Big Sur Festival in 1970. But if you listen to the tapes, that is good music played badly.

Well hypehat - I'm fortunate to operate with both having seen that "run" with Strawberry Alarm Clock and Buffalo Springfield and catching whatever gems are floating around YouTube.  And, it took a front seat (over Geometry) in my life, then.  It was not an "opinion" stated, it was framed as a "fact."  Also, the set lists were written on their palms.  There was no 16 point printed set list taped to the floor.  

There were 4 brand new songs they performed and that twenty-ish creamy voice of Carl Wilson who was doing a lot of leads.  Carl's voice was far and away superior to his siblings, and I would wager that Brian would agree.  How anyone would be critical of a show where Carl was doing all those new leads, is beyond my comprehension.

For example, I saw nothing prior to 1967.  What I saw as video footage was from Ed Sullivan or Bob Hope/Jack Benny, Andy Williams, Mike Douglas, and the Concert Album of either 1963 or 1964.  I would and do absolutely seek out friends who saw them in that era for their opinion, and defer to them.  The fans during that time, had no access to anything such as YouTube, or these soundboard tapes which have made their way online.  And I would never venture an opinion for that time.  

The difference is someone who was at a concert has an "informed opinion" and not making a broad statement that their performances between 1965 and 1967 were "bad" and it is doubtful that the music reviewers for the newspapers were giving them bad reviews, after huge hits such as Good Vibrations, Rhonda, and the Top Tens with Sloop John B and Wouldn't it Be Nice, etc.  

And I listened to that YouTube and cracked up with the California Girls endings and their ability to think on the spot when Carl's guitar string broke and the great organ on Wild Honey. That was all live, and I found it a fine performance.  Things go wrong, people get jet lagged, and it is a group of human beings attempting to play their work and make people happy.  

Fans generally accepted, at that time, especially after Good Vibrations and the tremendous production that proved to be, that Brian needed to be writing, and not on the road and his absence was a necessary compromise.  

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

Edit

Nvm

[hypehat]

The 1964 Beach Boys were boss though live.

I think another reason their popularity went down is their live show got really crappy in 1965-1967 once Brian left the road.

Did you go to any shows in 1965-1967 to tell us in what manner they were "crappy?"

Short of having a time machine, no. However, I have listened to a fair few shows and they are sloppy at best. I'm also not going off forty year old memories.

What you're trying to say is 'I had a good time', and that's totally cool, but the evidence I, a young whippersnapper, have - the tapes - show that they were hardly a fantastic live act. If I paid to see that, I'd be miffed that's for damn sure. I've seen better rehearsed bands down the pub.

They seemed to buck their ideas up for 1969 (Or whenever Live In London was recorded), and The Big Sur Festival in 1970. But if you listen to the tapes, that is good music played badly.

Well hypehat - I'm fortunate to operate with both having seen that "run" with Strawberry Alarm Clock and Buffalo Springfield and catching whatever gems are floating around YouTube.  And, it took a front seat (over Geometry) in my life, then.  It was not an "opinion" stated, it was framed as a "fact."  Also, the set lists were written on their palms.  There was no 16 point printed set list taped to the floor.  

There were 4 brand new songs they performed and that twenty-ish creamy voice of Carl Wilson who was doing a lot of leads.  Carl's voice was far and away superior to his siblings, and I would wager that Brian would agree.  How anyone would be critical of a show where Carl was doing all those new leads, is beyond my comprehension.

For example, I saw nothing prior to 1967.  What I saw as video footage was from Ed Sullivan or Bob Hope/Jack Benny, Andy Williams, Mike Douglas, and the Concert Album of either 1963 or 1964.  I would and do absolutely seek out friends who saw them in that era for their opinion, and defer to them.  The fans during that time, had no access to anything such as YouTube, or these soundboard tapes which have made their way online.  And I would never venture an opinion for that time.  

The difference is someone who was at a concert has an "informed opinion" and not making a broad statement that their performances between 1965 and 1967 were "bad" and it is doubtful that the music reviewers for the newspapers were giving them bad reviews, after huge hits such as Good Vibrations, Rhonda, and the Top Tens with Sloop John B and Wouldn't it Be Nice, etc.  

And I listened to that YouTube and cracked up with the California Girls endings and their ability to think on the spot when Carl's guitar string broke and the great organ on Wild Honey. That was all live, and I found it a fine performance.  Things go wrong, people get jet lagged, and it is a group of human beings attempting to play their work and make people happy.  

Fans generally accepted, at that time, especially after Good Vibrations and the tremendous production that proved to be, that Brian needed to be writing, and not on the road and his absence was a necessary compromise.  

I'm not saying they were crappy musicians or anything, but they just played badly in 1967! Although listening to the show Briansbathrobe posted upthread, Mike sounds like he's having the time of his life.... unfortunately. His stage banter makes me want to die. The audience are mostly silent. But that's not the point. It's a very weird show. Everyone's playing very... quietly. Reserved. Unsure. Songs just abruptly stop, like Darlin', where someone just gives up.

My point is if you listen to gigs by, lets say, The Velvet Underground from 1967 - two years after they properly formed, and got signed. They absolutely slay, they play loud, they play tight. I don't hear any dumb crap from their frontman. The songs don't end like someone's gone to the bathroom. You get what I'm saying? A properly rehearsed band does not play like The Beach Boys in 1967.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

Wasn't Dennis basically ordered to hardly play the drums for the Hawaii shows?

That could have worked great with A LOT of rehearsal!

You can't just ask a guy who's used to bashing the living hell out of his drums to suddenly sound like the guy at the back of the Grand Ole Opry for the last 40 years playing with a pair of brushes..... If you listen live stuff from 65: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3T5pQScvkck and 66 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlC1beTlD70  Dennis is incredibly solid.

[hypehat]

Yeah, Dennis is one of the sickest drummers I've listened to - but it's his brute force that makes that so, for me.

Oh god, still listening to this show. I wouldn't care if Justin Bieber moved in with me and asked me annoying questions about my sex life in shrieking falsetto, modern music is light years ahead of 1967 for the simple fact Mike Love has cooled his stage banter

[SMiLE Brian]

This guy on youtube posted some songs from the 1965 Chicago show. BBs kicking ass with Brian on bass.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3T5pQScvkck

[SMiLE Brian]

Yeah, Dennis is one of the sickest drummers I've listened to - but it's his brute force that makes that so, for me.

Oh god, still listening to this show. I wouldn't care if Justin Bieber moved in with me and asked me annoying questions about my sex life in shrieking falsetto, modern music is light years ahead of 1967 for the simple fact Mike Love has cooled his stage banter

Just don't listen to Syracuse 1971 or you might go insane permanently.

[filledeplage]

The 1964 Beach Boys were boss though live.
I think another reason their popularity went down is their live show got really crappy in 1965-1967 once Brian left the road.

Did you go to any shows in 1965-1967 to tell us in what manner they were "crappy?"

Short of having a time machine, no. However, I have listened to a fair few shows and they are sloppy at best. I'm also not going off forty year old memories.

What you're trying to say is 'I had a good time', and that's totally cool, but the evidence I, a young whippersnapper, have - the tapes - show that they were hardly a fantastic live act. If I paid to see that, I'd be miffed that's for damn sure. I've seen better rehearsed bands down the pub.

They seemed to buck their ideas up for 1969 (Or whenever Live In London was recorded), and The Big Sur Festival in 1970. But if you listen to the tapes, that is good music played badly.

Well hypehat - I'm fortunate to operate with both having seen that "run" with Strawberry Alarm Clock and Buffalo Springfield and catching whatever gems are floating around YouTube.  And, it took a front seat (over Geometry) in my life, then.  It was not an "opinion" stated, it was framed as a "fact."  Also, the set lists were written on their palms.  There was no 16 point printed set list taped to the floor.  

There were 4 brand new songs they performed and that twenty-ish creamy voice of Carl Wilson who was doing a lot of leads.  Carl's voice was far and away superior to his siblings, and I would wager that Brian would agree.  How anyone would be critical of a show where Carl was doing all those new leads, is beyond my comprehension.

For example, I saw nothing prior to 1967.  What I saw as video footage was from Ed Sullivan or Bob Hope/Jack Benny, Andy Williams, Mike Douglas, and the Concert Album of either 1963 or 1964.  I would and do absolutely seek out friends who saw them in that era for their opinion, and defer to them.  The fans during that time, had no access to anything such as YouTube, or these soundboard tapes which have made their way online.  And I would never venture an opinion for that time.  

The difference is someone who was at a concert has an "informed opinion" and not making a broad statement that their performances between 1965 and 1967 were "bad" and it is doubtful that the music reviewers for the newspapers were giving them bad reviews, after huge hits such as Good Vibrations, Rhonda, and the Top Tens with Sloop John B and Wouldn't it Be Nice, etc.  

And I listened to that YouTube and cracked up with the California Girls endings and their ability to think on the spot when Carl's guitar string broke and the great organ on Wild Honey. That was all live, and I found it a fine performance.  Things go wrong, people get jet lagged, and it is a group of human beings attempting to play their work and make people happy.  

Fans generally accepted, at that time, especially after Good Vibrations and the tremendous production that proved to be, that Brian needed to be writing, and not on the road and his absence was a necessary compromise.  

I'm not saying they were crappy musicians or anything, but they just played badly in 1967! Although listening to the show Briansbathrobe posted upthread, Mike sounds like he's having the time of his life.... unfortunately. His stage banter makes me want to die. The audience are mostly silent. But that's not the point. It's a very weird show. Everyone's playing very... quietly. Reserved. Unsure. Songs just abruptly stop, like Darlin', where someone just gives up.

My point is if you listen to gigs by, lets say, The Velvet Underground from 1967 - two years after they properly formed, and got signed. They absolutely slay, they play loud, they play tight. I don't hear any dumb crap from their frontman. The songs don't end like someone's gone to the bathroom. You get what I'm saying? A properly rehearsed band does not play like The Beach Boys in 1967.

It impressed me that Mike was covering while Carl got his guitar string fixed.  There weren't roadies all over the place running out with a different guitar to use, and tuning them, and as for the two shows I saw in 1967, they were both in theatres rather than multi use arenas.  

There may have been noise restrictions, as well as curfews.  I saw a cop come on the stage at some show during an encore telling them they were "done."  I know little about sound and the technical aspects.  Had you been in the audience, you might realize that people would see the broken string being attended to, and Mike was just trying to "keep things going."

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

yeah, on those clips and the 65 one I posted from, Dennis is easily the most solid musician on that stage...

In (a reluctant) defense of Mike's stage banter.... My ears can actually pick up the nearly wetting themselves with nervousness and terror inner shrieks from the other Beach Boys (aside from Dennis) .... They spent a lot of uncomfortable time in-between songs getting their sh*t straight for the next number and, as  guy who's played many live shows, the feeling of dead silence between songs is absolutely horrendous.... I can't blame Mike for feeling the need to say something/anything.... The other guys try and make jokes but they're usually worse than Mike's but they say them so quickly and nervously, you can hardly even understand them.

[hypehat]

Yeah, Dennis is one of the sickest drummers I've listened to - but it's his brute force that makes that so, for me.

Oh god, still listening to this show. I wouldn't care if Justin Bieber moved in with me and asked me annoying questions about my sex life in shrieking falsetto, modern music is light years ahead of 1967 for the simple fact Mike Love has cooled his stage banter

Just don't listen to Syracuse 1971 or you might go insane permanently.

I like the music they play at Sycaruse well enough. It also has my favourite Mike Love line onstage, when they're going to play Okie From Muskogee.

Al? Or Carl? doesn't sound like they were supposed to be on mic, at any rate - 'I hate this next song.'
Mike - *takes a perfect beat* 'You're going to love this next song'

 

[SMiLE-addict]

Don't know if anyone has thought of, or mentioned, this before, but it occurred to me today that if they had released Surf's Up as a single instead of Heroes and Villains it probably would have been better received and improved their fortunes.

[kookadams]

Does this thread really make sense? The Beach Boys have been relevant for the past 50 years, just because their commercial viability shifted from the US to the UK after 1967 doesn't have anything to do with relevance.

[Gertie J.]

'ev'rything makes sense in this big big world..'

[kookadams]

Considering that the Beach Boys are the most successful American rock band, the most popular and biggest selling Id say their relevance is pretty strong. Maybe certain eras were stronger than others in terms of the state of pop culture but theyve always held up, whether it be creatively or nostalgically.

[zachrwolfe]

‍

[Puggal]

I wish instead of trying to be "relevant" they just followed Brian's muse and made great experimental music, like they almost did on Smile and "Can't Wait To Long." All the other members wanted was commercial success and to be a part of the contemporary "in-crowd" (hippies). Brian was the only one with true creative vision in the band.

[Cam Mott]

I wish instead of trying to be "relevant" they just followed Brian's muse and made great experimental music, like they almost did on Smile and "Can't Wait To Long."

They did and it was called Smiley Smile, Wild Honey, and Friends.

[Iron Horse-Apples]

Quite

[leggo of my ego]

It is hard to determine without being there, but from recordings it sounds like when Brian left the touring band, a certain professionalism was lost until they started bringing in outside musicians.that's why I have said in the past that Smile couldn't have been performed live by the band, at least not well. I think once 1968 rolled around they improved out of necessity.

 With that in mind. I actually like that somewhat clumsy sound on the Michigan and Hawaii tapes!

Yeah, I think Brian kept them in line on tour. Although, he sometimes appeared nervous I think Brian was listening to everything
and leading all the way -- you can see some visual evidence of this in some old films like the "lost concert". Think I will go watch
that tonight!